Varick Homes Housing & Development Fund Co. v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varick Homes Housing & Development Fund Co. v. Jones

239 A.D.2d 491, 658 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 491 (Varick Homes Housing & Development Fund Co. v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Varick Homes Housing & Development Fund Co. v. Jones, 239 A.D.2d 491, 658 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Benson, J.H.O.), dated May 10, 1996, as (1) denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to recover damages in the sum of $60,375 on his counterclaim, and (2) granted the plaintiffs cross motion for an accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to an accounting as a [492]*492matter of law based on the fiduciary relationship of the parties and the undisputed evidence that the defendant breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized expenditures which may have resulted in the dissipation of assets (see, Fur & Wool Trading Co. v George I. Fox, Inc., 245 NY 215, 217-218; Ordinary Guy v Juniper Releasing, 199 AD2d 251; Palazzo v Palazzo, 121 AD2d 261, 265).

As for the defendant’s counterclaim, we conclude that he failed to establish entitlement, as a matter of law, to the unpaid management fees (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for an accounting, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Benson, J.H.O.), dated May 10, 1996, as (1) denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to recover damages in the sum of $60,375 on his counterclaim, and (2) granted the plaintiffs cross motion for an accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to an accounting as a [492]*492matter of law based on the fiduciary relationship of the parties and the undisputed evidence that the defendant breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized expenditures which may have resulted in the dissipation of assets (see, Fur & Wool Trading Co. v George I. Fox, Inc., 245 NY 215, 217-218; Ordinary Guy v Juniper Releasing, 199 AD2d 251; Palazzo v Palazzo, 121 AD2d 261, 265).

As for the defendant’s counterclaim, we conclude that he failed to establish entitlement, as a matter of law, to the unpaid management fees (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 491, 658 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varick-homes-housing-development-fund-co-v-jones-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack